Category Archives: Economy

From time to time, we like to look at the state of law, policy, and economics regarding the many federally-recognized Indian tribes. What does this have to do with Hawaii? Simple–one of the functions of this project is to explore the full story behind the implications of and motivations for the Akaka Bill. Mostly, we look at granting and policy related to Native Hawaiians. But, the relentless push for federal recognition of a Native Hawaiian “tribe” means that the political and economic implications of tribal policy is of vital importance to anyone who wants to fully consider what an Akaka Bill-based “tribe” will mean for Hawaii.

One of the ironies of this is that–as incomplete a picture that we may have of spending related to Native Hawaiians (and this project is a pioneer in that field), less is known about the details of federal spending regarding the more than 500 tribes listed in the Federal Register as Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Fortunately, through the work of some dedicated researchers, we are able to offer this initial list–an audit of federal Indian policy dollars. Of course, there’s a lot more work to do, and we can always use some more help. So check it out and contact us at 4hawaiiansonly@gmail.com if you’re interested in helping add to the research.

If you know your way around this site, you know that there are two ways of perusing the many, many grants we’ve recorded. Many. Many, many, many. It’s overwhelming actually. And overwhelming is kind of the point. No matter where you stand on the issue of Native Hawaiian sovereignty or the Akaka Bill, if you’ve checked out the grants here, you cannot fairly say that Native Hawaiians receive no support or help. There may be any number of cultural or socio-economic issues at play in the question of how Native Hawaiians fare in society. But if you’re looking for a reason to support the Akaka Bill, the claim that Native Hawaiians get no government resources is laughable in light of the evidence here.

Anyway, for those who just want an overview, there’s the quick list that can be viewed here. And for those who want to dig a little deeper, there’s the wiki/database of grants that can be viewed here. (And as a reminder: if you have any information or feedback to share on any grant, be sure to email us at 4hawaiiansonly@gmail.com so that we can add that information to the wiki. Frequent or especially helpful researchers are given their own log-ins to update at will.)

Recently, we added some information to our quick grant list that was previously only available in the wiki–you can now see at a glance which grants come from federal agencies and which from state departments. It’s no surprise to see that the federal portion of the grants on the list so far is slightly higher–a total of approximately $265,666,125 spent since fiscal year 2007. As for approximate state spending, it comes to a more modest (but still considerable) $56,201,112 for the same period of time. That’s more than the annual budget for a few different state departments. For a state that struggles with budget and deficit problems, that’s almost real money.

If you’ve been following our notes on questionable contracting preferences for Native Hawaiian Organizations and Alaska Native Corporations, you’ll know that a few hardworking journalists have been raising questions about these practices, most notably in Hawaii Reporter and the Washington Post. (Hawaii Reporter has found that Native Hawaiian organizations have been able to use this special status to gain $500 million in reduced-competition or no-bid contracts since 2005.)

Well, finally someone is responding to the questions being raised about the fairness and efficacy of this system. Senator Inouye has called for hearings on the SBA contracting preference rules.

Oh no–not to pursue the issue about the propriety of the preferences. Don’t make me laugh. Senator Inouye would cut taxes or dance nude on Leno before doing that. No, Senator Inouye is calling for these hearings in order to give supporters of the preferences (especially the organizations that benefit from them) the chance to publicly justify and defend them. Ain’t democracy grand?

It has been a great couple of weeks for our friends at Hawaii Reporter, who even scored a Drudge mention and a Tonight Show one-liner out of their coverage of the Obama family vacation (see below). So how about a quick round-up of things that cost us money?

John Carroll has an examination of the Jones Act and how it damages the Hawaii economy. You know, the Jones Act debate isn’t exactly glamorous. Most people can’t even get past the fact that it’s about maritime law before getting a tad sleepy. But if you live in Hawaii, this is important. Ever wondered why you practically need to a second mortgage in order to buy a box of cereal? The Jones Act is the answer. A small group of politicians and activists have been trying for a long time to get a Hawaii exemption to this federal law, and it’s time that their reforms got a fair hearing.

And then there’s the analysis of how the current Administration’s policies are going to mean higher gas prices. Not good news for those in the Islands–where even when things aren’t bad, mainlanders blanch at our average per-gallon cost. And no, the answer is not light rail. Higher fuel prices trickle down, and it’s about more than just what you pay at the pump. You pay those higher gas prices when you buy bus tickets, toilet paper, and just about anything else.

And finally, a lighter note. Here’s the Tonight Show monologue with the mention of the Obama vacation cost.

So, what ever happened to the much-ballyhooed OHA petition to force money out of the Hawaii legislature? I remember when they filed it with the Hawaii Supreme Court. How could I forget? I got two separate press releases, a print newsletter article, an e-newsletter brief, and multiple links to the story as picked up (and especially endorsed) by other media outlets. No one would let me forget it. As I recall, the spin went something like this: the Hawaii legislature was resistant to approving the payout plan for a $200 million settlement between OHA and the Lingle Administration related to ceded land revenues, so OHA petitioned the Hawaii Supreme Court to force the legislature to pass a law regarding this pay-out In the OHA version of the story, the reason for the Legislature’s foot-dragging is unexplained, though one is free to conclude that the Legislature is just full of culturally-insensitive money-grubbing politicians. (Not that this is necessarily totally inaccurate, but fairness compels me to point out that our current economic and budget woes make this a bad time for the legislature to try to carve out another $200 million for OHA.)

Anyway, it turns out that the State Supreme Court has ruled on OHA’s petition for a Writ of Mandamus, though in order to learn what happened, I had to read a small column in the lower right corner of page 7 of OHA’s monthly newspaper. No email blasts for this one, I guess. As you may have surmised, the OHA petition was denied based on (in the article’s somewhat mendacious words) the court’s, “understanding of the technical requirements for a mandamus action.” Allow me to translate this into plain language: The court said no, based on the fact that the OHA petition was a bit of public grandstanding with no legal merit.

As I said in my earlier entry on this issue, to me, the big problem is not whether the state owes OHA the money or how they should pay. I just continue to be amazed at the insensitivity of the powers-that-be at OHA. After such a difficult economic year, these kinds of stunts don’t do much to bolster the agency’s image. And trying to obscure the evidence of their miscalculation doesn’t help much either.

Today, we continue with the third part of our guest series on the development of Indian casino gaming in California, by Jim Marino. (This series originally ran in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal.)

Sometimes it seems as though the issue of gaming is an unspoken controversy that advocates of the Akaka Bill are desperately trying to avoid. As though the fact that it is not allowed under the current version of the bill is a sufficient guarantee forevermore. But, as today’s installment demonstrates, a state can move from no casino gaming of any kind to a flood of Indian casinos in a surprisingly short time–and with little to no real input from the public. Those who are concerned about Akaka being the path to Hawaiian casino culture would do well to take note of California’s experience. . .

RESULTS OF I.G.R.A AND THE PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION 1A AND THE FLOOD OF INDIAN GAMBLING CASINOS IN CALIFORNIA
Santa Ynez Valley JournalBy Jim Marino, Guest Columnist
April 29, 2010

(Part 3)

The first week I discussed what led up to the enactment of the IGRA. Last week I wrote about all of the antiquated, ambiguous and contradictory aspects of federal Indian law and policy in existence, when the ill-advised Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act [IGRA] was enacted by Congress, in a feeble attempt to provide an economy for Indian tribes.

As you may recall from last week, the controversial Indian gambling law was enacted by Congress without even considering the impact the existing body of federal Indian law and policy would have. This resulted in the authorization of tax free, lawless and unregulated casino gambling by Indian tribes and related businesses in which patrons, workers and the nearby communities are, in effect, deprived of all their legal and Constitutional rights and cannot sue for injuries or damages occurring in those casinos and businesses. I also wrote of how that Act has also enabled these tiny often questionable tribes to make hundreds of millions in profits, while still collecting federal welfare and grant monies that are monies needed by real Indians still living on remote reservations and living in conditions of abject poverty.

This week’s article deals with how Indian gambling was legalized in California and some of the impacts of the IGRA and the Indian casinos it spawned in California, has had on nearby non-Indian communities.

To give Congress the benefit of the doubt, Congress created the only method that States had available to them in order to control and regulate Indian casino gambling under the IGRA. That mechanism was the requirement that prior to engaging in Class III gambling casinos the tribe and state government would have to enter into a compact (or contract). They did this by including section 2710 d.(3) in Title 25. Under that provision, Indian tribes seeking to engage in class III casino gambling were required to negotiate and have the affected state approve, a compact. If the state lawfully approved a compact, then it was lawfully in effect according to State law.

Following the enactment of the IGRA in 1988 many bands of Indians in California, some with only one or two members, began operating class II Bingo games with unlimited money pay-offs. The Santa Ynez Chumash built a cinderblock building as a “Bingo casino” funded at least in part by the Las Vegas singer Wayne Newton and other Las Vegas gambling investors and apparently did so under questionable circumstances. It soon closed down amongst rumors and controversy, but with a view toward reopening in the future.

Class II “Bingo” gaming under the IGRA does not require a tribal-state compact, only a license from the National Indian Gaming Commission [NIGC] and is in effect unsupervised gaming beyond licensing and annual audits. Before the Supreme Court struck down the provision in the IGRA, giving the tribes the right to sue the state when they claimed the State was not negotiating in good faith, California tribes threatened the State with several suits if the State did not negotiate compacts for full-scale Class III casino gambling. The California Constitution Art. 4, Section 19, prohibited full-scale casino gambling including slot machines, blackjack, craps, roulette and so forth.

Because slot machines generally make up 85 percent of the revenue any casino brings in, the tribes were threatening lawsuit if the State would not negotiate for slot machines and banked card games like blackjack. (Remember the Cabazon case discussion earlier. The State had the absolute right to refuse to allow all forms of gambling by any Indian tribe, as long as those types of games were also prohibited for everyone else in the state to operate.) Slot machines had been illegal in California for years and use, possession or transport was a violation of the California Penal Code.

One lawsuit brought by Indian tribes in the 1990s claimed the lotto terminals the State had licensed to bars and cocktail lounges all over the state were, in effect, state run “slot machines.” Therefore, the tribes claimed they had a right to install slot machines in their casinos. The court denied that assertion but was highly critical of the definition of “slot machines” set out in the California Penal Code. As a result, the state pulled all these machines from bars all over the state and stored them in a warehouse, where I believe they still sit today.

Many tribes like the Santa Ynez Chumash simply ignored the law prohibiting slot machines and the requirement of a tribal-state compact in 25 USC 2710 d (3) requiring such a compact before Class III gambling could be allowed. Then one night in 1995, the Chumash moved more than 600 slot machines into the cinderblock former Bingo casino and began illegally offering slot machines to the public and position player backed blackjack games. The installation of these slot machines also constituted a violation of the Johnson Act, a federal law prohibiting the unlawful transportation, use, procurement and possession of slot machines. After all, the delaying litigation was exhausted in 1997. The State Attorney General and federal authorities including the F.B.I. informed the illegal casino tribes like the Santa Ynez Chumash that they intended to raid them, seize the slot machines, all monies and other illegal fruits of the illegal gambling operations and even arrest the operators. The tribes then launched a public initiative-drive entitled Proposition 5 in 1998.

Proposition 5 was an initiative to amend the California Government Code to allow Indian tribes to operate slot machines on Indian lands in California. Besides sponsoring that initiative the tribes, many of whom were operating illegal casinos with slot machines at the time, like the Santa Ynez Chumash, pumped millions of dollars into an advertising campaign to depict pictures of poverty-stricken Indian tribes self-sufficient.

In addition to this advertising campaign, these casino Indians pumped millions into the campaign coffers of Grey Davis, a career politician who was running for Governor in 1998. In November 1998, Proposition 5 was approved by the voters and Grey Davis was elected Governor. Commencing in 1999, Gov. Davis began negotiating gambling compacts with California Indian tribes, all of which was done behind closed doors. None of the traditional power groups in California such as local governments, taxpayers groups, law enforcement organizations, environmental groups, trial lawyers, workers compensation and consumer lawyer groups, women’s rights groups, union and others were allowed the opportunity to participate in the discussions and influence the terms of these tribal-state class III gambling compacts.

As a result, the compacts Gov. Davis agreed to were weak, giveaway compacts with many provisions so poorly written that they were virtually unenforceable. These compacts provided no revenue at all to the state and made no provisions to mitigate the significant negative impacts the flood of Indian casinos that resulted would have, and subsequently did have, on local communities.

In the meantime, Proposition 5 was challenged in a lawsuit and in August 1999 the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 5 was unconstitutional because it only amended the Government Code not the State Constitution, which contained the prohibition on casino gambling like slot machines and house banked card games in Art. 4, sec. 19.

Undaunted by the Supreme Court’s striking down Proposition 5, Gov. Davis executed some 59 of these giveaway tribal state compacts and then had the State Legislature approve them in September and October 1998. He made no effort to determine if the tribes he was negotiating with, and granted gambling compacts to, were lawfully created Indian tribes or if the land on which their casinos or proposed casinos were to be sited were legally “Indian Lands” eligible class for III gambling under federal law. In fact, many of these questionable Indian tribes were on land or acquired land that was clearly not eligible to build and operate any class II or class III gambling casinos under the IGRA.

To remedy the fact that these compacts were executed and approved when there was no longer any legal authority to do so, the Legislature put a “Legislative initiative” on the ballot for March 2000 the following year at Gov. Davis’ behest, some 6 months after they were executed and approved. That initiative, called Proposition 1A, by its language proposed to amend the California State Constitution Art. 4, sec. 19, to authorize the Governor to negotiate future compacts with California Indian tribes. The voters were never informed that a vote in favor of Proposition 1A would, in effect, retroactively ratify the 59-weak giveaway, virtually unenforceable compacts that Gov. Davis has already signed without legal authority and which were approved at his instance by the State’s Legislature. It is not coincidence that so many State legislators also received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from these casino tribes, often funneled throu gh campaign committees and PAC’s with unassuming names. My favorite was the one calling itself “The California Native Peace Officers Association.” That PAC was funded by $5,000,000 million entirely from the Pechanga Indian Casino and the State Correctional Officers Union and was distributed to key politicians in Sacramento. The use of PACs is one of the ways politicians use to disguise receipt of gambling monies by disguising them through innocent-sounding groups. Once legalized in 2000 by Proposition 1A, the onslaught of Indian casinos in California began.

NEXT TIME: PART 4, THE EXPANSION OF “INDIAN CASINO GAMBLING IN CALIFORNIA AFTER PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION 1A AND THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND COMMUNITIES.”

Imagine for a moment that you had a few thousand dollars in loose change and bills behind the cushions of your couch, in your old jacket pockets, a spare wallet or two, and spread out through a few pairs of pants. How big a jerk would you be in this situation if you then went to your best friend, told him you were totally broke, and asked to him to give you money to pay your rent? If you answered, “No more a jerk than your average local politician,” you win. Congratulations! You truly understand the nature of Hawaii politics.

According to a recent report from the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, the state has more that $1.4 billion in unspent excess funds sitting in “special funds” accounts–several of which have long been noted by the state auditor for repeal. What is a “special fund”? In short, it’s a little niche set-aside of state money for some specific purpose–say, public art education–funded through anything from state license fees to legislative appropriations. You may recall that the 2009 Legislative Session included a finance bill that gave the Hawaii director finance authority to “raid” these special funds if necessary to pay government expenses. This, not unnaturally, got some of us wondering exactly how much money there was available in these state special funds. In light of the nearly relentless efforts to raise taxes and raid our wallets, the knowledge that there are untold millions of state dollars sitting around in untouched “special funds” is just a wee bit infuriating.

In a review of 20 State Department reports, they found 186 accounts identified as special funds.

This accounts amounted to a combined excess balance of $1,412,357,203.

Divided equally among the population of Hawaii, these combined excess balances have a refund value of $1090.47.

The Hawaii Department of Transportation was the worst offender, with $582,449,161 reported as unspent, while the Hawaii Health Systems Corporation had the smallest excess at $34,837.

Really, how outrageous is the situation when the smallest, most responsible excess is still more money that many Hawaiians make in a year? An economist once pointed out that there are four ways to spend money: 1. You can spend your own money on yourself, in which case you look for the best possible value in quality and price; 2. You spend other people’s money on yourself, in which case you look for the best quality and damn the price; or 3. You spend your money on other people, and look for the best value in terms of price and might compromise on value; and 4. You spend other people’s money on other people, and to heck with quality, value, price, or anything other than getting home from work a little earlier than usual. Most government spending–especially as practiced in Hawaii–falls into Category 4. We get nothing but sob stories from every possible state representative about lack of revenue. We get tax increases and “Furlough Fridays” and guilt trips about the plight of government workers. And all this time, they’ve been hoarding funds to the tune of $1.4 billion. It boggles the mind.

So, who do you think pays the most in state taxes in the US? New Yorkers? That would have been my guess, simply based on how legendarily expensive it is. (Not to mention how bad a beating my wallet takes every time I go there. Ok, technically speaking, the nice restaurants shouldn’t count as a New York tax–it’s really more of a tax on me for not living in NYC.) So then, if not New York, maybe Massachusetts? Don’t they call it “The People’s Republic of Massachusetts”? If a strong tradition of Northeastern liberalism doesn’t result in a hefty tax bill, then nothing will.

Yes, New York and Massachusetts both make the top 5. But for a sheer, soul-crushing, burdensome tax scheme, no other state can beat Hawaii. That’s right. We’re #1! We’re #1! I quote the San Francisco Chronicle’s recent article on the states with the greatest individual tax burden on their residents:

HawaiiThe Aloha State may be renowned as one of the most beautiful states in the Union, but that beauty comes at significant cost: the average Hawaiian paid out $1,010 in state taxes in the first quarter of the year, the highest of any state. The two biggest components to the state’s revenues were income and excise taxes.

Unlike many other states, Hawaii doesn’t have a sales tax – instead, Hawaiians pay gross receipts (or excise) taxes on each of their purchases. That means that items like rent, medical bills and food are all taxable purchases in Hawaii, unlike other states with traditional sales tax. That also means that tax-exempt non-profits have to pay out Hawaii’s excise tax regardless of their status in other states. (Real estate costs in Hawaii are also high. Read more, in Simple Ways To Save In Retirement.)

How bad is it when San Francisco feels sorry for you? Damn. (In case you’re wondering, rounding out the top 5 are Connecticut, New York, Minnesota, and Massachusetts. A small, mean part of me feels that higher taxes are no less than those residents deserve for having the Patriots, Red Sox, Yankees, Giants, Jets, and Vikings between them. Hawaii’s number one and doesn’t have so much as a professional soccer team to its credit. How’s that fair? )
So could you use an extra couple of thousand dollars a year? (Double for couples where you both work.) Because this is where our decades of high-tax/high-spend policies have landed us. With an individual tax burden higher than any other state in the US. Personally, I think it’s time we start asking our legislative and gubernatorial candidates some hard questions about their tax policies.

The Heritage Foundation has released its 2010 Index of Dependence on Government, and you will be unsurprised to hear that American dependence on government programs continues to grow–especially in the health and welfare sectors. Now, I will be the first to admit that, when confronted by a bevy of charts and words like “index” and “variables,” my eyes begin to glaze over and I think longingly of cool drinks and reality TV reruns. But there is a reason to pay attention to what the number-crunching prognosticator-types are talking about.

For example–do you have (or are you working towards) a government pension? Do you want it to still be there when you need it? Because when budget crises reach a certain critical point (*cough* California *cough*), one of the first things that they look to cut are pensions and state salaries.

So what does this have to do with government spending on Hawaiians. Because while a few hundred million is nothing to sneeze at, spending on Native Hawaiians seems minor in a year that included the massive stimulus bill. But there’s more to the problem of creating a dependency on government programs than just the dollars and cents of it. As the authors of the index explain:

To be clear: Every person will be dependent on others many times during his or her life, and there is nothing wrong with that. People spend most of their childhoods utterly dependent on their parents, and many people will rely on caregivers during their last years. Dependence on family, neighbors, fellow members of community groups, and—yes—local government is the normal, everyday stuff of life.

When people receive aid from someone in their social circle, they are given an opportunity to repay that aid someday in a similar way. Mutual aid is the glue that binds communities together; it gives strength to families and the greater civil society. Most Americans know instinctively that creating strong communities and families is a matter of caring for each other.

When the federal government provides aid, that aid also binds the dependent person to the aid giver. This aid, however, is anything but mutual. No one expects the dependent person one day to give similar aid to the federal government. And government aid certainly does not strengthen communities and families: If Americans have learned anything about the federal welfare system, it is how effectively it undermines family structure and hollows out communities.

Worse, dependence-creating programs quickly morph into political assets that policymakers all too readily embrace. Voters tend to support politicians and political parties that give them higher incomes or subsidies for the essentials of life; but no matter how well-meaning policymakers might have been when they created government aid programs like Medicare, unemployment insurance, and subsidized housing, these same programs quickly grow beyond their mission and turn into a mechanism that creates and sustains a never-ending cycle of dependence—and entitlement thinking.

Is there a clearer delineation of the problem inherent in depending on government to shore up the health of a community, be it racial, ethnic, or otherwise? I’ve been worried for a long time about the slowly dissolving sense of ohana in the Islands, and I begin to wonder if this is part of the explanation for it.

Today, I have a guest article for you from Elaine William of CERA (Citizens Equal Rights Alliance). Many of those who are acquainted with the problems of tribal law, federal policy regarding tribes and reservations, and the financial issues that abound there are watching Hawaii carefully to see how those same factors will come into play if the Akaka Bill passes. If you’re concerned about Akaka, these are issues that you cannot afford to overlook. (And for those who are interested in the complex problems that arise out of the conflict between civil liberties and tribal government, you’ll want to check out their website at www.citizensalliance.org.)

Indian Casinos:

The New Industry That Is…Too Big To Fail!”

By Elaine Willman, Board Member

Citizens Equal Rights Alliance

Imagine a major Indian casino, the Mohegan Sun in Connecticut, reporting that its slot revenues reported to the state in April have “stabilized,” slipping only 1 percent. The same casino reported $1.3 billion (with a “B”) in gross revenue for 2009. However, the economy is still dark, customers have less disposable income to slough into the tax-exempt slots, and the casino is facing a $15 million lawsuit for a head-on wreck caused by a drunken customer.

So every member of Connecticut’s congressional officials (except for one on travel) wants to ensure that the Mohegan Sun does not fail; that its “job creation” is always protected. These fool elected officials have promoted and now awarded Stimulus funding of $54 MILLION dollars) in the form of a guaranteed loan from USDA to this mega-wealthy tribe.

And if they default? No problem. Tribes have sovereign immunity. Taxpayers whose taxes are already annually subsidizing this and 565 other Indian tribes in 35 states for all basic needs—housing, health, law enforcement, roads, environment, scholarships, language, cultural preservation—Yes, you and I, our children and grandchildren, will just continually pay off the casino debts in perpetuity across the country.

Taxpayers get to: 1) annually fund all basic needs of tribal governments: 2) cover all tribal uncollectible debt due to “sovereign immunity;” and 3) keep throwing dollars into tax-exempt tribal slot machines across the country so our local economics get sufficiently and systematically drained of tax revenues and small businesses. To make this work, taxpayers must faithfully commit to frequenting tax-exempt tribal government businesses. But now it doesn’t matter if you choose not. They’re too big to fail; the federal agencies will step in and bill you for their losses, anyway.

There are 245 other tribes in the lower 48 states entitled to the same perks as the Mohegan Sun. Fortunately, the 228 tribes in Alaska who receive the basic-needs funding, at least don’t have casinos yet. Alaskan tribes are non-profit corporations without jurisdictional authority or gaming so they focus almost entirely on their culture. What a concept!

First a few facts: 565 federally recognized (tax-exempt) tribes are located in 35 hosts states, of which 246 tribes are gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. Every host state to numerous tribal tax-exempt and tax-eroding tribal governments and reservations are coincidentally the states experiencing the largest state budget deficits.

The impossibility is calculating the annual cost of this race-based socialist system spreading across the country. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke reports $94 million in Stimulus Funding for the tribes in Washington State alone. We’re hearing 4 billion annually just for tribal health care; many more billions for housing, law enforcement, etc. And these dollars do not include the “Tribal Priority Allocations” doled out annually by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. There are 29 federal agencies – each with a separate budget for funding the 565 tribes. And worse, state governments that have no “trust relationship” with Indian tribes (such as Washington, Oregon, Montana and others) have set up separate state budgets to supplement federal dollars going out to tribes. Strike Two for taxpayers. All of these federal and state dollars are serving less than 1 million enrolled tribal members of our 300+ million American population.

Who can blame the Native Hawaiians for wanting in on this lucrative industry, forever chaining down American citizens to the galley oars of a feudal federal Indian policy system? Pray that the Akaka Bill (Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act) fails again in Congress this year, or these numbers will considerably worsen.

Since the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 federal Indian policy has been a 76-year private conversation between federal agencies, elected officials and tribal leaders, with the whopping bills deducted from your federal and state tax contributions annually. We simply can no longer afford to sustain and grow this socialist erosion spreading across 35 and perhaps 36 (Hawaii) states.

One of our astute Supreme Court Justices assessed our predicament accurately when he noted the following, over fifteen years ago:

“Individuals who have been wronged by unlawful racial discrimination should be made whole; but under our Constitution there can be no such thing as either a creditor or a debtor race. That concept is alien to the Constitution’s focus upon the individual. …To pursue the concept of racial entitlement – even for the most admirable and benign of purposes – is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred. In the eyes of government, we are just one race here. It is American.” Justice Antonin Scalia, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 534 U.S. 103 (1995)

Here is the problem: Over 35 years ago, in 1975 Congress passed the Indian Self-Determination and Education (IDEA) Act to promote economic self-sufficiency for tribal governments. Apparently this was not working well enough, so 22 years ago, Congress added the economic steroid of a tax-free gaming monopoly for Indian tribes when it passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988.

In March of this year, George Skibine, an Assistant Secretary at the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) was a keynote speaker at the 2010 Citizens Equal Rights Alliance (CERA) conference in Washington, D.C. Mr. Skibine was asked: “Has the Department of Interior (DOI) or Bureau of Indian Affairs ever developed criteria or measuring systems by which a tribal government might be deemed economically self-sufficient, and no longer in need of federal funds?” The answer was no. Not in 35 years so far. Not even with a gaming monopoly. The follow-up question: Does the DOI/BIA have any interest in establishing such economic indicators so that federal subsidies could be redirected to either write down our national deficit, or redirected to the poorest tribes? The answer was no again. Why should they? The behemoth BIA bureaucracy grows as the number and needs of tribes grow.

Also at the CERA Conference Mr. Skibine was asked if the BIA or federal government could ascertain the total annual federal funds expended for tribal governments? His response: “We tried to do that once, but were unable to.” Astounding! No one knows the annual bottomless pit of taxpayer dollars supporting tribal governments.

So there you have it. We are enslaved forever by our Congressmen to a burgeoning number of private tax-exempt governments that we are forced to fund unknown annual billions in perpetuity. And now we must assume the responsibility for all failed tribal government debts. This is on top of the disastrous oil spill, the failing housing and banking industry, and government takeover of health care.

What can you do? Try any or all these suggestions:

Howl at every talking head on radio and television.

Get firm commitments from incumbents or candidates to put a “sunset” or end game in place for this tax-enslavement.

Get federal legislation that prohibits gaming tribes from receiving stimulus funds of any sort.

Get legislation in place that ends any further “federal recognition” of wannabe tribes.

Educate everyone you know by circulating this article, and getting it web-posted everywhere you can.

We are stuck with the horrendous oil spill disaster. We are stuck with the present administration throwing more huge tax dollars out to tribes. We are stuck with the government takeover of multiple industries in this country under the present administration.

We are not stuck with our elected officials. We can get responsible commitments from federal and state elected officials, or get them out office, beginning in November 2010. We are not helpless.

And we best get busy. Tribal governments claim to plan for seven generations. That is a long time for Americans to be subservient custodians of our fellow U.S. citizens. Menominee Tribal leader, Ada Deer once said, “We use the system to beat the system.” It is time to end the abuse of the “system.”

Elaine Willman, MPA, is the author of Going to Pieces…the dismantling of the United States of America. Ms. Willman is past Chair and current Board member of Citizens Equal Rights Alliance, an organization focused on the equal rights of tribal members who have no protections under the 14th Amendment, and serve at the mercy of private tax-exempt governments annually subsidized without inquiry or consent of American taxpayers.